New research has found New Zealand’s policy of allowing fossil-fuel emitters to offset all their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by planting trees is at odds with the rest of the world, and it is having a damaging impact on the agricultural sector and rural communities here.
Beef + Lamb New Zealand commissioned the international emissions trading schemes and forestry report to explore the relationship between emissions pricing and forestry in other countries.
The study focuses on how other countries use “offsets” within an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as they transition to using less fossil fuel.
A key finding was that New Zealand and Kazakhstan were the only countries that allowed 100 percent offsetting in their carbon pricing mechanism.
While Kazakhstan theoretically allows 100 percent offsetting, individual companies must apply to offset on a project-by-project basis and no instances of forestry offsetting happening in practice could be found.
As New Zealand allows for 100 percent offsetting and full participation of forests in the NZ ETS, the carbon market and forestry sectors are intricately linked, with each having the ability to vastly impact the other.
Federated Farmers’ Gisborne-based meat and wool council chair Toby Williams said it was not surprising the report showed there would be devastating effects to communities here.
“Ever since the initial government consultation was released I have warned about the effects in our region.
“We were already reeling from land use change to forestry then the devastating cyclones came along to give us another kick in the guts,” Mr Williams said.
“Should the Government proceed with their current plans to tax the crap out of productive businesses that provide the food we need to survive then they had better be ready to pay for the mental health and welfare issues that will arise from it.
“Being small in population means we are easy targets for woke bureaucrats and politicians who have their heads buried in the tarmac of their gold-lined streets that agriculture paid for. Those who make decisions in the cities need a bloody big wake-up call.
“The only reason that cities are able to exist is because of agriculture, period.
“When our ancestors first walked out of the forests they were nomadic hunter gatherers moving around where the food was most plentiful; no cities or villages or anything like that,” Mr Williams said.
“It was the domestication of wild animals then primitive farming that enabled them to pull up and stay in one place.
“As time marched on so did farming techniques and management, which enabled cities to grow.
“As transportation and roading networks improved, so did the needs of agriculture to ensure those people who lived in one place could be sustained with nutritious food,” he said.
“Now if, like our government seems to want to do, we sacrifice the farms that feed you in the cities, then how will the cities survive?
“Will you return to your hunter gatherer ways? Will you import food from other nations to sustain yourselves? The one thing that is guaranteed is if the choice is to sacrifice food producers then this will drive up food prices. This is basic economics.
“Food will never be cheaper than it is today. That will lead to significant parts of our population requiring even more government support to keep nutritious food on the table,” Mr Williams said.
“But where is the money going to come from to do this? Certainly not from the primary industry. “Are we willing to improve our practices to assist with climate change? Yes.
“What we are not willing to do is sacrifice our families, our staff and our livelihoods on the false assumptions this government are using to justify their proposed tax.”
The report also showed the European Union and the UK do not allow carbon offsetting in their ETS, while China, South Korea and US states Washington, North Carolina and California allow for below 5 percent.
Meanwhile, Mexico and Taiwan, along with Canadian province Quebec, allow for 10 percent and other areas like Tokyo permit up to 33 percent offsetting.
While other countries enforce strict limits and requirements to ensure offsets deliver a variety of benefits, New Zealand has no set targets to reduce emissions from fossil-fuel use or any limits on how much offsetting can happen through the ETS to meet climate change targets.
B+LNZ chief executive Sam McIvor said using forestry to offset fossil-fuel emissions was a short-term fix creating long-term problems.
“We are not anti-forestry and there is a place for some carbon offsetting, but we are concerned about the volume of it.
McIvor said sheep and beef farm purchases have risen from 7000 hectares in 2017 to 52,000 hectares in 2021 (for a total of 175,000 hectares over the five-year period).
“We estimate this equates to one million less stock units, 1600 fewer jobs a year, $170 million less spent in communities and $245 million less in export revenue annually.”
GHG offsets ‘damaging’ to East Coast rural sector
FORESTRY - File picture of a pine forest near Mangakino in the central North Island. 21 October 2008 New Zealand Herald Photograph by Alan Gibson. NZH 16Sep09 - BANK BRANCHES: Without an ETS, Maori would not be able to unlock credits from the Central North Island forest assets. PICTURE / ALAN GIBSON NZH 31May10 - NAD 05Jun10 - NRA 18Jun10 - SUN 04Jul10 - WTA 29Jul10 - NAD 12Aug10 - WGP 22Jan15 - BEG TO DIFFER: Ahem, Mr Groser. A million hectares of average productivity radiata pine could offset at least 90 per cent of total agricultural emissions for 30-40 years, writes Denis Hocking in response to claims New Zealand has no obvious options to reducing greenhouse gases. PHOTO/FILE RGP 24Sep15 - RGP 22Oct15 - RGP 10May16 - CHALLENGE: Climate change is a challenge for the forestry industry. PHOTO/FILE WGP 23Jun16 - WAG 30Jun16 - NAG 30Jun16 - BTG 03Aug16 - UP AND UP: Forestry in the Central North Island has competitive advantages, an industry specialist says. RGP 04Aug16 - FORESTRY: Managing the harvest will be vital. BTG 01Nov16 - Should assets such as forests be owned by the government?PHOTO/FILE RGP 01Dec16 - MORE: The Afforestation Grant Scheme aims to see more trees planted. RGP 23Mar17 - The Afforestation Grant Scheme has seen about 7700ha of new forest planted. WGP 30Mar17 - SEEING WOOD FOR TREES: Planting forests will give us time to come up with permanent ways of eliminating emissions, but it will be only a stopgap measure. PHOTO/FILE RGP 13Apr17 - SEEING WOOD FOR TREES: Planting forests will give us time to come up with permanent ways of eliminating emissions, but it will be only a stopgap measure. PHOTO/FILE NAG 11May17 - SEEING WOOD FOR TREES: Planting forests will give us time to come up with permanent ways of eliminating emissions, but it will be only a stopgap measure. PHOTO/FILE BTG 14Aug17 - NZH 27Nov17 - Picture/Alan Gibson NZH 08Mar18 - Forestry rights do not involve the sale of the land. RGP 28Mar19 - WGP 11Jul19 - I'm not a fan of
